BELL v. REGIS CORPORATION SMARTSTYLE FAMILY HAIR SALON DIVISION et al
| CAROLYN SUE BELL |
| REGIS CORPORATION SMARTSTYLE FAMILY HAIR SALON DIVISION, BETH COURTIER, CONNIE SMALLWOOD, KEN SHAFFER and DEBRA HARRIS |
| 1:2008cv01154 |
| August 28, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Marion |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Richard L. Young |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
43
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 37 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice 37 is granted. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/13/2009.(PG)
|
|
Filing
41
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Dismissal is the appropriate sanction for Bell's failure to participate in her own lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Defendant's motion to dis miss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. [Docket No. 37 .] Any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation shall be filed with the Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and failure to file timely objections within the ten days after service shall constitute a waiver of subsequent review absent a showing of good cause for such failure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/21/2009.(TRG)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
